IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Bridgett Morgan,

Plaintiff

 v.

Sulina Moler,

Defendant

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action 2:12-cv-00700

Judge Graham

Magistrate Judge Abel

Initial Screening Report and Recommendation

Plaintiff Bridgett Morgan brings this action against defendant Sulina Moler. 

Plaintiff's motion to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs is GRANTED. 

This matter is before the Magistrate Judge for screening of the complaint under

28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) to identify cognizable claims, and to recommend dismissal of the

complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

from such relief. See, McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir. 1997). The

Magistrate Judge finds that the complaint fails to state a claim and, therefore,

recommends dismissal of the complaint.

The complaint alleges that plaintiff is seeking monetary damages from Sulina

Moler for making libelous statements to the Internal Revenue Service for "fraud tax

filings audit." The complaint alleges that "[t]he defendant and co-worker Louise Long

Case: 2:12-cv-00700-JLG-MRA Doc #: 6 Filed: 10/12/12 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
are not business partners, as published by Sulina Moler." The complaint alleges that

"[t]he plaintiff tax filings with husband name of Kevin Barksdale should not have been

issued to Internal Revenue by the defendant. '2010." Sulina Moler." The complaint

alleges that plaintiff's husband is Solomon Peterson according to the marriage

certificate. 

When considering whether a complaint fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6),

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court must construe it in the light most favorable to

the plaintiff and accept all well-pleaded material allegations in the complaint as true. 

Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); Roth Steel Products v. Sharon Steel Corp., 705

F.2d 134, 155 (6th Cir. 1983). Rule 8(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for

notice pleading. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). The United States Supreme

Court held in Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007):

. . . Rule 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Specific facts showing that

the pleader is entitled to relief are not necessary; the statement need only

"'give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds

upon which it rests.'" Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127

S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957).

Moreover, pro se prisoner complaints must be liberally construed. Erickson v. Pardus,

551 U.S. at 94; Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10 (1980).

Although Rule 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” it is not true that notice pleading means

that a complaint need plead no facts. The form complaints appended to the Federal

2

Case: 2:12-cv-00700-JLG-MRA Doc #: 6 Filed: 10/12/12 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Rules of Civil Procedure all include basic facts, such as the date the actionable event(s)

took place and a brief description of them. E.g., Forms 9-14 and 17. Here the complaint

does not allege the date(s) on which any actionable event took place. Further, it does

not plead any facts that would give defendant notice of the claims and the grounds on

which they rest.

Analysis. Here, the allegations in the complaint fail to give defendant fair notice

of plaintiff’s claims against her. The complaint does not articulate any basis for subject

matter jurisdiction. It is simply not clear what defendant has allegedly done.

A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous when the plaintiff cannot make any

claim with a rational or arguable basis in fact or law.Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

328-29 (1989); see also Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1198 (6th Cir. 1990). An action

has no arguable legal basis when, for example, a plaintiff claims a violation of a legal

interest which clearly does not exist. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 327. An action has no

arguable factual basis when the allegations are delusional or rise to the level of the

irrational or "wholly incredible." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992); Lawler,

898 F.2d at 1199. The complaint may not be dismissed as factually frivolous simply

because the court finds the plaintiff's claims unlikely or improbable. Denton, 504 U.S. at

33. Here the complaint is legally frivolous. 

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the complaint be

DISMISSED because it fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Defendants do not

3

Case: 2:12-cv-00700-JLG-MRA Doc #: 6 Filed: 10/12/12 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
have to respond to the complaint unless the Court rejects this Report and

Recommendation. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's application to proceed without

prepayment of fees be GRANTED. The United States Marshal is ORDERED to serve

upon each defendant named in the complaint a copy of the complaint and a copy of this

Order.

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within

ten (10) days, file and serve on all parties a motion for reconsideration by the Court,

specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof in

question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B); Rule 72(b),

Fed. R. Civ. P.

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District

Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. Thomas v. 

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-52 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). See

also, Small v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989). 

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of the complaint and this Report

and Recommendation to the defendant.

s/Mark R. Abel 

United States Magistrate Judge 

4

Case: 2:12-cv-00700-JLG-MRA Doc #: 6 Filed: 10/12/12 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>